Assume you are the Facility Director of a large office building and you’ve just received your “year end” electric utility bill. You note that it is higher in total costs than last year’s and consumption is up a little too. It would be nice to know how other office buildings are doing on this cost item. Maybe you are doing just fine, or perhaps you need to invest in some energy savings programs to reduce costs. Direct comparisons with a valid peer group would be very valuable and appropriate in making the correct decisions.
Many facilities organizations are looking for benchmarking data to compare how they organization is managing major expenses like utility costs. One of the problems often encountered is having enough time to collect and input data for a benchmarking survey. What is really needed is a table or chart showing the key utility cost or consumption metrics of a good peer group to compare with their performance. This will enable you to get to “first base,” and thus see if further investigation is necessary, or maybe everything is ok and on a par with what other similar buildings are doing (in which case you would not need to go into more depth with benchmarking).
Let’s look at some of the options and tools available to you.
We’ll start with the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for utilities. Utilities can be measured both in two ways: consumption and costs. A good analogy is the MPG rating of an automobile. Any new car buyer looks at the manufacturer’s information on the vehicle and knows immediately that a 12 MPG vehicle is going to cost a lot of money in gas vs. an energy efficient 40 MPG. Buildings can be compared in a similar manner; you just need to know where to look for the “sticker” that shows annual kilowatt hours (KWH)/unit area.
Comparing your energy consumption may give you the wrong perspective on your performance unless the comparisons are made with a relevant peer group.
FM BENCHMARKING LITE is an example of a tool that can be used to create a chart showing the KWH/area of a good peer group. In Figure 1, for example, is a chart showing the KWH/area for office-type facilities.
Filters: Type of facility (Office). Note that no data of one’s own had to be input to generate this report.
Figure 1 allows you to see at a glance how well your facilities are utilizing electricity compared to other office buildings. There are 317 buildings in this peer group with a median KWH utilization of 24.32 KWH/GSF and a first quartile performance of 17 KWH/GSF (“first quartile performance” means that only 25% of the facilities in this peer group outperformed this 24.32 KWH/GSF threshold.
By looking at and comparing similar types of facilities, you will be able to make intelligent “data driven” decisions. The Facility Director, for this example, has totaled his annual KWH consumption and divided by the GSF to determine the annual usage of 32.3 KWH/GSF, which is near the top of the third quartile, and much worse than the median building in this peer group.
But there are more filters we can add to the peer group than just the type of the facility. The example office building is in a “Mixed-Humid” climate and we should see what happens to our peer group when we turn on this filter. There are 33 buildings in this sample so it is enough for a valid comparison (see Figure 2).
Filters: Type of facility (Office), Geographic Location (Mixed-Humid).
The above chart shows a slightly lower median KWH/GSF (22.53 KWH/GSF compared with 24.32 KWH/GSF for office buildings in all climates). From this data it appears that climate may have some minor impact on electric consumption but not enough to make a significant change; this could be because many of the other office buildings in the peer database are in a climate similar to Mixed Humid, so they balance each other out.
Let’s look next at some benchmarking cost comparisons. Since we have been analyzing electric consumption we should look at electric costs. Figure 3 shows the electric cost per GSF for office facilities. The median is $2.37 and the first quartile performance is $1.61/GSF. The Facility Director, for this example, has totaled his annual electric costs and divided by the GSF to determine the annual cost of $1.72/GSF. That puts the facility near the bottom of the second quartile which is a good cost performance.
Filters: Type of facility (Office)
They are doing a good job on purchasing their electricity but consumption is high indicating a need for some energy efficiency projects. From here, decisions can be made that can significantly change the operating cost profile of the facilities portfolio—all without having to go thru the process of collecting benchmarking data and submitting it.
FM BENCHMARKING LITE is a good example of a tool to see where you stand in a very quick and easy manner. If your facility performance is in the third or fourth quartile you may need to investigate and benchmark further to determine the next steps to take. As an FYI, FM BENCHMARKING offers a more robust version to enable you to go to that level, comparing best practices of those whose buildings outperform yours.
